Dataset Information

Colorectal surgery patient perspectives on healthcare during the CoVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To focus on critical care needs of coronavirus patients, elective operations were postponed and selectively rescheduled. The effect of these measures on patients was unknown. We sought to understand patients' perspectives regarding surgical care during the CoVID-19 pandemic to improve future responses.

Methods

We performed qualitative interviews with patients whose operations were postponed. Interviews explored patient responses to: 1) surgery postponement; 2) experience of surgery; 3) impacts of rescheduling/postponement on emotional/physical health; 4) identifying areas of improvement. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed through an integrated approach.

Results

Patient perspectives fell within the following domains: 1) reactions to surgery postponement/rescheduling; 2) experience of surgery during CoVID-19 pandemic; 3) reflections on communication; 4) patient trust in surgeons and healthcare.

Conclusions

We found no patient-reported barriers to rescheduling surgery. Several areas of care which could be improved (communication). There was an unexpected sense of trust in surgeons and the hospital.

SUBMITTER: Rivard SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7970406 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The urgency to curtail the devastating effects of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic has led to the implementation of several measures to limit its spread, including movement restrictions and social distancing. As most developing countries rely solely on hospital visitations for their medical needs, this impediment to assessing healthcare services compounded by low uptake of telehealth services could result in dire consequences. This is a cross-sectional study among Healthcare providers (HCP) and Healthcare consumers (HCC) in Nigeria. We administered a pre-validated self-administered online questionnaire comprising questions to assess the knowledge, use, perceptions, and benefits of telemedicine among study participants. Descriptive statistics were used to examine participants’ perceptions on telemedicine use and to summarize participants’ characteristics. A total of 158 healthcare providers and 1381 healthcare consumers completed the online survey. Ninety percent of HCP reported that they used some form of telemedicine to deliver health care, and 63% of HCC had received healthcare through telemedicine. A significant proportion of HCP (62%) and HCC (69%) agreed that telemedicine would improve healthcare consultation experience and satisfaction. However, fewer (21%) HCP agreed that they liked that there would be no physical contact with patients using telemedicine. In contrast, 52% of HCC agreed that they liked that there would be no physical contact with healthcare providers while using telemedicine. The majority of the participants believed that benefits of telemedicine would include: being a safe way for healthcare delivery during pandemics (HCP = 62%, HCC = 83%), affordability (HCP = 62%, HCC = 82%), and time-saving (HCP = 54%, HCC = 82%,). Teleconsultation services have been shown to aptly complement face-to-face hospital visits in ensuring effective triaging in hospitals and providing adequate healthcare delivery to patients regardless of geographical and physical barriers. These results support telemedicine use for the provision of healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to quantitatively assess stress, anxiety and obsessive thinking related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and qualitatively appraise perceptions in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used mixed-methods design in patients referred for CR in 2 centres which delivered uninterrupted service during COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and in-person interviews (combination of a priori questions and probing) were used to evaluate patient experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.ResultsIn total, 109 patients (mean age 59 ± 10, 20% women) were included in quantitative part and in 30 of them we conducted the in-person interviews. About a quarter of patients met HADS threshold for anxiety and depression while CAS and OCS results demonstrated extremely low possibility of coronavirus related dysfunctional thinking (3%) and anxiety (2%). The CSS indicated the most prevalent concerns were related to COVID-19 vaccines safety (60%) and fear of getting infected (60%). During interviews, patients perceived the CR as well as health care providers as safe, trustworthy and with enough support to avoid or manage COVID-19 related health risks.ConclusionsOverall, patients reported AMI affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 related stress and anxiety were relatively low and mostly related to general views of infectious disease. CR was perceived safe and trustworthy in terms of primary disease and COVID-19.Lay summaryThis mixed-method study included 109 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 and focused on their experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.-Patients reported acute myocardial infarction affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic.-The COVID-19 related concerns were mostly related to general views of infectious disease (vaccine safety, fear of getting infected) whilst cardiac rehabilitation was perceived safe and trustworthy environment during COVID-19.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation of away rotations and other experiences fundamental to orthopaedic surgery residency application. Limited information is available on the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic residency application cycle. This study aimed to evaluate the current perspectives of applicants and PDs regarding the orthopaedic surgery residency application process. This was a cross-sectional study using 2 independent but similar surveys that addressed multiple aspects of the application process during the COVID-19 pandemic, including perceived effect of virtual experiences. Between February and March 2021, the surveys were distributed to orthopaedic surgery applicants and orthopaedic residency PDs. In total, 113 applicants (20.1%) and 29 PDs (19.6%) completed the survey. Applicants applied to 97.6 programs and received 13.3 interviews. They participated in 2.4 virtual away rotations. In total, 79.3% of programs reported offering some form of virtual opportunity, including virtual away rotations (24.0%), virtual happy hours (64.0%), and virtual conferences (64.0%). Programs offering virtual away rotations hosted 46.8 rotators and only invited back 54.5% for an interview. Applicants were most concerned about the lack of away rotations, the interview, and networking during this cycle, and 51% reported less confidence in matching. The most important factors for influencing applicant rank lists were perceived happiness of residents, resident camaraderie, and geographic location. However, residency program social events were not well replicated in a virtual setting. The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for applicants and PDs. Applicants had less clinical exposure and received less interview invites after virtual away rotations. Despite applying to more programs, applicants received fewer interviews than in previous years. The virtual experiences adopted in this cycle did not adequately replicate the social factors that applicants found most important when ranking a program. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, PDs most highly valued away rotation performance, clinical rotation performance, and board examination scores when offering interviews.